Gesichert rechtsextremistisch, gesichert verboten?
Das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz hat die AfD als eine „gesichert rechtsextremistische Bestrebung“ eingestuft. Nach einer Pressemitteilung kommt die Behörde zu dem Ergebnis, dass in der AfD als Gesamtpartei ein „ethnisch-abstammungsmäßige[s] Volksverständnis“ vorherrsche, das mit der Menschenwürdegarantie des Grundgesetzes nicht vereinbar sei. Seitdem wird über ein AfD-Verbot diskutiert, oft ohne zwischen den rechtlichen Anforderungen für die Einstufung einerseits und für das Parteierbot andererseits zu unterscheiden. Bei der Einstufung einer Partei durch das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz handelt es sich allerdings nur um eine behördliche Einschätzung, die für ein etwaiges Parteiverbotsverfahren keine Bindungswirkung hat.
Continue reading >>
It’s solidarity, stupid!
Few cases have triggered as stark reactions as Commission v Malta. In the ruling’s aftermath, many legal scholars and practitioners were quick to discard the decision. While the ruling is bold, innovative, and goes far beyond established precedent, the Court’s reasoning remains brief, ambiguous, in some parts even obscure and sibylline. Yet, most of the Court’s “great” judgments have left room for interpretation. No doubt, Commission v Malta will be subject to many, very different, affirmative or critical interpretations. In the following, I will provide one – of several possible! – readings, which seeks to square the ruling with constitutional reasoning.
Continue reading >>
Longing for Safety before the European Court of Justice
On 10 April 2025, Advocate General de la Tour delivered his Advisory Opinion in the joined cases Alace and Canpelli dealing with the powers of Italy – and, by extension, other EU Member States – to legislate on what constitutes a “safe third country” and a “safe country of origin”. The AG confirmed that Italy can list a third country as “safe” when it is “generally” deemed as such, provided that this designation is compliant with EU law. This piece discusses how the human rights of applicants seeking international protection are likely to be hindered by this approach.
Continue reading >>
The Silent Engine of European Citizenship
In its ruling on 29 April 2025 in Case C-181/23 Commission v Malta, the Grand Chamber held that Malta’s investor citizenship scheme, which grants Maltese nationality in exchange for predetermined payments or investments, was contrary to EU law. Although the judgment has been criticised (perhaps not without reason) for its lack of doctrinal foundation, it does demonstrate that the EU principle of mutual trust has constitutional character and is normatively capable of challenging national administrative mechanisms, such as the Maltese naturalisation scheme, that are incompatible with the values in Art. 2 TEU.
Continue reading >>
Zwischen Deutung und Hoheit
Bei der konstituierenden Sitzung des neu gewählten Bundestags trug die Abgeordnete Cansin Köktürk eine „Kufiya“ um den Hals geknotet. Dagegen haben sich drei Abgeordnete an Bundestagspräsidentin Julia Klöckner gewandt. Verletzt die Kufiya die Geschäftsordnung des Bundestages und die Würde des Hauses? Das Grundgesetz sagt dazu nichts. Deshalb werden entsprechende Fälle über einzelfallbezogene Ordnungsmaßnahmen gelöst. Dabei kann sich der Maßstab jedoch erheblich unterscheiden, je nachdem, welche Bedeutung dem Symbol zugeschrieben werden kann. Es bedarf deshalb einer grundlegenden Auseinandersetzung mit der juristischen Methodik der Symboldeutung.
Continue reading >>
Anatomy of a Fall
On 11 February 2025, the Commission published its 2025 work programme and revealed the likely withdrawal of the Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive (‘AILD proposal’), citing “no foreseeable agreement” among Member States. This blog post highlights the proposed AILD’s main merits and shortcomings and it explores the implications of its likely withdrawal for EU tech regulation by clarifying the interplay between AI liability rules, the AI Act, and the PLD.
Continue reading >>
CURRENT DEBATES
Ongoing Controversies over Methods in EU Law – Towards a Reflexive Turn
The ongoing controversies over methods in EU law reflect a broader rethinking of the discipline, influenced by multiple crises in the European Union. Scholars are questioning traditional conceptions of EU law as a law of integration and its disconnection from European societies. The rise of critical approaches and empirical methods, alongside interdisciplinary perspectives, challenges doctrinal and functionalist interpretations. This shift, often referred to as a methodological turn, does not imply dominance over classical approaches but calls for a “reflexive turn.” Scholars are urged to reflect on their methods and the role of EU law in the production of legal knowledge, fostering greater awareness of historical and contemporary debates in the field.
Read all articles >>ADVERTISEMENT
Volume 7,Issue 1
April 2025
JUS COGENS
-
C. CORRADETTI, G. DAMELE
-
Machiavelli’s State and its Later Reception
GÜRKAN ÇAPAR
OUR LATEST PUBLICATION
Erik Tuchtfeld, Isabella Risini & Jakob Gašperin Wischhoff (eds.)
Eyes Everywhere: Surveillance and Data Retention under the EU Charter
In La Quadrature Du Net II, the CJEU significantly lowered standards for mass data retention under the EU Charter, prioritizing security over privacy. This edited volume brings together European and international scholars and practitioners to explore how this shift may affect EU citizens’ protection of fundamental rights and substantially redefine the surveillance and data retention framework for public and private agents.
Views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
Grant Agreement No. 101143236.
PROJECTS
VB Security and Crime
In cooperation with:
VB Security and Crime is a cooperation of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law (MPI-CSL) and the Verfassungsblog in the areas of public security law and criminal law. The MPI-CSL Institute is a member of the Max Planck Law network.
Das Justiz-Projekt
Weltweit gerät die unabhängige und unparteiische Justiz unter den Druck des autoritären Populismus.
Wie verwundbar ist die rechtsprechende Gewalt in Deutschland – im Bund und in den Ländern?
VB Security and Crime
In cooperation with:
VB Security and Crime is a cooperation of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law (MPI-CSL) and the Verfassungsblog in the areas of public security law and criminal law. The MPI-CSL Institute is a member of the Max Planck Law network.